linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@kernel.org>
To: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, fstests@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: add a test case to verify the scrub error reports
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 10:45:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAL3q7H7z7Cutdrm5f2VmqFHCbkO9wic_45GYre+9uOFKtdgsXA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230606073233.75900-1-wqu@suse.com>

On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 8:41 AM Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com> wrote:
>
> There is a regression in recent v6.4 cycle where a scrub rewrite changed
> how we report errors, especially repairable errors.
>
> Before the rewrite, we report the initial errors hit, and the amount of
> repairable errors.
> While after the rewrite, we no longer report the initial errors, but
> only the number of repairable errors.
>
> This behavior change is a regression, thus needs a test case to prevent
> such problem from happening again.
>
> The test case itself would:
>
> - Create a btrfs using DUP data profile and 4K sector size
>
> - Create a file with one 128K extent
>
> - Corrupt the first mirror of that 128K extent
>
> - Scrub and checks the detailed report
>   Both corrected errors and csum errors should be 32.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
> ---
>  tests/btrfs/289     | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  tests/btrfs/289.out |  2 ++
>  2 files changed, 69 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100755 tests/btrfs/289
>  create mode 100644 tests/btrfs/289.out
>
> diff --git a/tests/btrfs/289 b/tests/btrfs/289
> new file mode 100755
> index 00000000..914b6280
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tests/btrfs/289
> @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
> +#! /bin/bash
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +# Copyright (C) 2023 SUSE Linux Products GmbH. All Rights Reserved.
> +#
> +# FS QA Test 289
> +#
> +# Make sure btrfs-scrub reports errors correctly for repaired sectors.
> +#
> +. ./common/preamble
> +_begin_fstest auto quick scrub repair
> +
> +# For filedefrag and all the filters

So almost the same comment as in the other test:

This comment is a bit confusing. File defrag? The test doesn't exercise defrag.
I'm not seeing the test using filters either, the test is redirecting
xfs_io's stdout to /dev/null

> +. ./common/filter
> +
> +# real QA test starts here
> +
> +# Modify as appropriate.
> +_supported_fs btrfs
> +_require_scratch
> +
> +_require_odirect
> +# Overwriting data is forbidden on a zoned block device
> +_require_non_zoned_device "${SCRATCH_DEV}"
> +
> +# The errors reported would be in the unit of sector, thus the number
> +# is dependent on the sectorsize.
> +_require_btrfs_support_sectorsize 4096

So same as before, can we please get a _fixed_by_kernel_commit to
identify the patch that fixes the regression?

> +
> +# Create a single btrfs with DUP data profile, and create one 128K file.
> +_scratch_mkfs -s 4k -d dup -b 1G >> $seqres.full 2>&1
> +_scratch_mount
> +$XFS_IO_PROG -f -d -c "pwrite -S 0xaa -b 128K 0 128K" "$SCRATCH_MNT/foobar" \
> +       > /dev/null
> +sync
> +
> +logical=$(_btrfs_get_first_logical "$SCRATCH_MNT/foobar")
> +
> +physical1=$(_btrfs_get_physical ${logical} 1)
> +devpath1=$(_btrfs_get_device_path ${logical} 1)
> +_scratch_unmount
> +
> +echo " corrupt stripe #1, devpath $devpath1 physical $physical1" \
> +       >> $seqres.full
> +$XFS_IO_PROG -d -c "pwrite -S 0xf1 -b 64K $physical1 128K" $devpath1 \
> +       > /dev/null
> +
> +# Mount and do a scrub and compare the ouput

ouput -> output

> +_scratch_mount
> +$BTRFS_UTIL_PROG scrub start -BR $SCRATCH_MNT >> $tmp.scrub_report 2>&1
> +cat $tmp.scrub_report >> $seqres.full
> +
> +# Csum errors should be 128K/4K = 32
> +csum_errors=$(grep "csum_errors" $tmp.scrub_report | awk '{print $2}')

Use $AWK_PROG instead.

> +if [ $csum_errors -ne 32 ]; then
> +       echo "csum_errors incorrect, expect 32 has $csum_errors"
> +fi
> +
> +# And all errors should be repaired, thus corrected errors should also be 32.
> +corrected_errors=$(grep "corrected_errors" $tmp.scrub_report | awk '{print $2}')

Same here, $AWK_PROG instead.

Otherwise, it looks fine, thanks.

> +if [ $corrected_errors -ne 32 ]; then
> +       echo "csum_errors incorrect, expect 32 has $corrected_errors"
> +fi
> +
> +echo "Silence is golden"
> +
> +status=0
> +exit
> diff --git a/tests/btrfs/289.out b/tests/btrfs/289.out
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000..7d3b7f80
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tests/btrfs/289.out
> @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> +QA output created by 289
> +Silence is golden
> --
> 2.39.0
>

      reply	other threads:[~2023-06-06  9:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-06-06  7:32 [PATCH] btrfs: add a test case to verify the scrub error reports Qu Wenruo
2023-06-06  9:45 ` Filipe Manana [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAL3q7H7z7Cutdrm5f2VmqFHCbkO9wic_45GYre+9uOFKtdgsXA@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=fdmanana@kernel.org \
    --cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=wqu@suse.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).